4 ms·

This is a misguided idea that can lead to negative results. Members of the government should be able to involve themselves in commerce. It is a sign of a health

This is a misguided idea that can lead to negative results. Members of the government should be able to involve themselves in commerce. It is a sign of a healthy capitalist society. The financial economy directly impacts millions of Americans. Detaching the lawmakers from this economy can lead to regulations that hurt it. Thinking back to history, a government friendly towards commerce was a major factor of capitalism's taking off in Britain.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Members of the government should be able to involve themselves in commerce. It is a sign of a healthy capitalist society. It is certainly a sign of a capitalist society, but whether it is a healthy one or not is rather in dispute. Since the late-19th and early 20th Century, relatively pure capitalism has been broadly viewed as unhealthy in the places that have practiced it, generally replaced by the modern mixed economy which shares a common general shape of drift from capitalism in its various implementations, one aspect of which tends to be limitations on public officials engaging in commerce especially within the realm of their official responsibility, and Members of Congress (as well as the President) have, unlike officials of most particular agencies, an essentially universal domain of official responsibility.
- usa1774 5y ago
  Indeed, the mixed economy the society has shifted to is a form of capitalism constrained by regulatory frameworks. Imposing limitations on public officials engaging in the commerce they are designed to regulate can be quite reasonable, such as done in Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act passed in 2013. I think you would agree that the proposed legislation is pushing the boundaries further. Legislations based on fundamental principles such as maintaining public confidence and avoiding conflicts of interest can serve a legitimate interest of the public, but when appropriate legislations are already in place, artificially separating public officials and the stock market further poses an unreasonable burden on congress members and harms their ability to understand and represent their constituents.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > but when appropriate legislations are already in place Whether the legislation in place is sufficient to be the “appropriate legislation” on the issue is...rather the point in debate, an argument which simply takes that it is for granted and proceeds from there is missing the entire point.
    - usa1774 5y ago
      Glad we are on the same page. The point of debate is indeed whether the existing regulations are enough. In case this has not been made clear, my contention is that existing regulations such as the STOCK act are sufficient.
ecnahc515 5y ago
They still can, this is only about individual stocks. Under this, members of Congress could still hold index funds, just not individual stocks.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Members of the government should be able to involve themselves in commerce. It is a sign of a healthy capitalist society. It is certainly a sign of a capitalist society, but whether it is a healthy one or not is rather in dispute. Since the late-19th and early 20th Century, relatively pure capitalism has been broadly viewed as unhealthy in the places that have practiced it, generally replaced by the modern mixed economy which shares a common general shape of drift from capitalism in its various implementations, one aspect of which tends to be limitations on public officials engaging in commerce especially within the realm of their official responsibility, and Members of Congress (as well as the President) have, unlike officials of most particular agencies, an essentially universal domain of official responsibility.

usa1774 5y ago
Indeed, the mixed economy the society has shifted to is a form of capitalism constrained by regulatory frameworks. Imposing limitations on public officials engaging in the commerce they are designed to regulate can be quite reasonable, such as done in Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act passed in 2013. I think you would agree that the proposed legislation is pushing the boundaries further. Legislations based on fundamental principles such as maintaining public confidence and avoiding conflicts of interest can serve a legitimate interest of the public, but when appropriate legislations are already in place, artificially separating public officials and the stock market further poses an unreasonable burden on congress members and harms their ability to understand and represent their constituents.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > but when appropriate legislations are already in place Whether the legislation in place is sufficient to be the “appropriate legislation” on the issue is...rather the point in debate, an argument which simply takes that it is for granted and proceeds from there is missing the entire point.
  - usa1774 5y ago
    Glad we are on the same page. The point of debate is indeed whether the existing regulations are enough. In case this has not been made clear, my contention is that existing regulations such as the STOCK act are sufficient.

ecnahc515 5y ago

They still can, this is only about individual stocks. Under this, members of Congress could still hold index funds, just not individual stocks.